The BANK OF COLUMBIA v. PATTERSON’S Adm’r
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia, in an action of indebitatus assumpsit, brought by the Defendant in ei’ror against the president, directors, and company of the bank of Columbia, in their corporate capacity. There were four counts only in the declaration. . _ 1st. Indebitatus assumpsit, for matters properly chargeable in account. 2d. Indebitatus assumpsit, for work and labor done. 3d.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia, in an action of indebitatus assumpsit, brought by the Defendant in ei’ror against the president, directors, and company of the bank of Columbia, in their corporate capacity. There were four counts only in the declaration. . _ 1st. Indebitatus assumpsit, for matters properly chargeable in account. 2d. Indebitatus assumpsit, for work and labor done. 3d. Quantum meruit $ and Insimut COmmitassenU 1 On the trial below, the Defendant took three bills of exceptions. . The 1st stated, that the Plaintiff read in evidence a sealed agreement,…
1Opinion of the Court
Story J.
delivered the opinion of the Court, as follows :
Several exceptions have been taken to the opinion of the Court below. Which will be considered in the order in which the objections arising out of them have been presented to us. We are sorry to sáy that the practice of filing numerous bills of exceptions is very inconve nient 5 for all the'points of law might be brought before the Court in a single bill, with a simplicity, which would relieve the bar and the bench from every unnecessary embarrassment.
As the argument on the first exception has proceeded upon the ground, that the…
2Cited by155 opinions
- Ross v. BernhardSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Bank of United States v. DandridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Fleckner v. President of the Bank of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
150 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.